THE WILL TO END WAR 


BY 

ARTHUR DEERIN CALL 

SECRETARY OF THE AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY 
AND EDITOR OF 
THE ADVOCATE OF PEACE 


REPRINTED FROM 

ADVOCATE OF PEACE 

AUGUST and SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER NUMBERS 
1920 


AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY 
FOUNDED 1828 
612-14 COLORADO BUILDING 
WASHINGTON. D. C. 

1920 







* * 


- * %. 
























^ c\t> 




THE WILL TO END WAR* 


By ARTHUR DEERIN CALL 


SOLACES 


t A time when men everywhere are depressed and 



1 in despair because of the losses and sorrows of an 
unprecedented war, a war that still hangs on from the 
Baltic to the Caucasus, through the Levant and beyond, 
it has been comforting to me to search out some of the 
things worth while which, it would seem, the war has, 
happily, left to us. It is a solace to feel that our hope 
in public education survives; that we have faith that we 
may yet attain unto truth; that the dignity of human 
character remains, and that our zeal for self-culture 
continues. It is heartening to find that men still recog¬ 
nize the social importance of individual behavior, and 
that they demand veracity, as of old. The human strug¬ 
gle for a moral ideal goes on. The tasks of the day are 
easier because the aspirations of democracy within the 
State are still discernible, and because the social purpose 
is seen to be back of the great motives of men. The war 
has taken much, but it has left these. And, more com¬ 
forting than any one of them, in no small measure be¬ 
cause of them, there remains also the will to end war. 
Indeed, the war itself has vitalized this purpose, so con- 

*This is article tei\ of a series entitled “The War Has Not 
Destroyed.” The titles of the articles, already printed in 
the Advocate of Peace, are: The War Has Not Destroyed— 
I. Our Hope in Public Education; II. Our Belief in the 
Attainability of Truth; III. The Dignity of Human Char¬ 
acter; IV. The Zeal for Self-Culture; V. The Social Im¬ 
portance of Individual Behavior; VI. The Demand for 
Veracity; VII. The Human Struggle for a Moral Ideal; 

VIII. The Aspiration for Democracy Within the State; 

IX. The Social Purpose; X. The Will to End War. 


3 



4 


spicuously a feature of the nineteenth century, more 
widely and convincingly. 

Men have always felt the paradox of Christian civili¬ 
zation to be its wars; the amazing wonder of human 
history to be its incongruous spear-stickings and grue¬ 
some blood-lettings. 

Before this war a few of us were calling attention to 
the distressing cost of it all in the terms of wealth; 
to the far more unhappy costs, because of the per¬ 
version of judgments. We saw even in those threat¬ 
ening days the slow, hopeful evolution of a more 
rational interpretation of international behavior, the 
gradually increasing substitution of judicial and other 
peaceful methods of settling international disputes. We 
argued that such things made for an inevitable improve¬ 
ment in an intolerable world situation; that, indeed, 
they meant the ultimate doom of international wars. 
We aimed to make our arguments against war more than 
mere emotional, personal, and subjective ravings of 
“well-meaning pacifists.” We thought them more than 
simply transcendental fulminations of theorists and 
dogmatists. We believed them more valuable than vain 
ex-cathedra utterances wholly lacking in proof. We 
assumed our arguments to be capable of scientific dem¬ 
onstration. We had long known that it is difficult to 
dogmatize upon the causes of war, and, similarly, upon 
the prospects of ending war. We were always ready to 
grant that the world presents no problem so intricate 
as the problem of substituting reason for force in the 
settlement of international disputes. But, behind the 
will to end war, we sought out the arguments founded 
in logic and honest research. We saw that, as it is 
possible to demonstrate scientifically that there has been 
a successful group control of individual crimes of vio¬ 
lence, so it should be possible to demonstrate scientific¬ 
ally that there is an evolution in the law to end crimes 


of international violence. The individual highwayman 
leads a precarions and a hnnted career. The same is 
true of the nation highwayman. Objective inquiry 
shows that the fighting instinct among men has been 
curbed and altered by law. The same kind of inquiry 
tells us that the war instinct of nations must accept the 
same fate, for otherwise, with our highly scientific means 
of destruction, the nations cannot long endure. 

Yet, as we feared, a war came, a devastating war. But 
the supreme lesson of all that now is that we were right 
then; and that now, if civilization is to survive, the na¬ 
tions must again go collectively about the job of ending, 
if possible, once for all, this paradox, this amazing 
scourge, this incongruous orgy, this indescribable horror 
of war. The war has been a sufficing demonstration of 
the truth we aimed to teach then. Hence this will to 
end war is, partly because of the war, more apparent and 
outspoken among men everywhere. Thus there is balm 
in Gilead; there is a physician there. 

THE BENUMBING COSTS OF IT 
In Money 

The reasons for this will to end war are not difficult 
to find. For example, the money cost of it all has been 
brought home to us anew, and the will to stop it 
strengthened. And that cost is bewildering as it is im¬ 
pressive. The national debts of the world have increased 
since 1913 from $43,200,931,000 to $265,305,022,000, 
and they are still mounting. The per capita debt of 
the United States has increased during the same period 
from $11 to $225; of Great Britain from $78 to $850; 
of France, from $160 to $1,150. The building of the 
Panama Canal cost us approximately $400,000,000. By 
1918 the direct money cost of the war had risen to 
$10,000,000 an hour—a Panama Canal every one and 


6 


two-thirds days. The total direct expense during the 
period of the war was equivalent to 465 Panama canals. 

If to the direct costs we add the no less tangible in¬ 
direct money costs, we have the amazing equivalent of 
at least 930 Panama canals. And the indirect costs are 
most distressing. The 13,000,000 dead boys mean at 
least 13,000,000 others prematurely dead because of 
lowered vitality—in fact, of broken hearts. But just 
those 13,000,000 dead boys, representing a number con¬ 
siderably more than twice the total deaths due to all the 
wars of the nineteenth century, including the twenty- 
five years of the Napoleonic struggles, mean 13,000,000 
less among our best producers. Prof. Ernest L. Bogart 
finds, and he has been confirmed by such statisticians 
as O. P. Austin, the direct and indirect money costs of 
the great World War to have been $337,946,179,657. 
But that was two years ago. The costs are still accumu¬ 
lating, let us repeat. As Professor Bogart adds: 

“The figures presented in this summary are both incom¬ 
prehensible and appalling; yet even these do not take into 
account the effect of the war on life, human vitality, eco¬ 
nomic well being, ethics, morality, or other phases of human 
relationships and activities which have been disorganized 
and injured.” 

Since a billion is such an incomprehensible number, 
the staggering financial situation of the world may be 
more nearly realized if the case be put thus: The total 
debts of the nations are $265,000,000,000, which means 
$221,000,000,000 more than in 1913. The annual in¬ 
terest on these debts is over $9,000,000,000, five times 
, greater than before the war. Now, according to the 
latest figures, the number of men, women, and children 
in all the world is only 1,692,604,366. The total num¬ 
ber of seconds which have passed during the 1920 years 
of our Christian era is only 1,078,272,000. And yet 
these inconceivable expenses do not include the money 


value of crippled soldiers, or of invalided and devital¬ 
ized armies and civilian populations. The property loss 
in France, $13,000,000,000, is not included. The fig¬ 
ures do not tell us of the destruction of productive ma¬ 
chinery, the reduced production, the lower birth-rate, 
and the accelerated race deterioration around the world. 

It is said that the fear of costs does not deter nations 
from going to war. I believe it does. Whether it does 
or not, it ought. In 1913, our navy bill was $150,000,- 
000. The amount appropriated for the navy by the 66th 
Congress is $433,279,574. Our army bill for 1915 was 
$111,000,000. Our present army bill is $392,558,365. 
Our present expenditures for the army, navy, fortifica¬ 
tions, Military Academy, and pensions, as provided by 
the last Congress, is $900,265,847. Interest on our pub¬ 
lic debt for the ensuing fiscal year, a war expense, will 
be $980,000,000; and if we add to this $260,000,000 for 
the sinking fund, we discover that our yearly expense 
for our public debt alone is more than our total annual 
governmental expenditure prior to the war. By the 
most conservative figures it appears that for every dollar 
spent by our government, 93 cents is because of war. 
When we remind ourselves of those other and relatively 
higher war expenditures in Europe and elsewhere; when 
we recall that while the world's net annual war expense 
in 1913 was $4,000,000,000, that is relatively but a 
paltry sum now indeed; when we think of what all this 
means in the way of a continuing expense through the 
century that lies before, and try to compute it in terms 
of the unimaginable billions, we have to accept the fact 
that all of our efforts to apply our theories of social 
organization are to be tragically retarded. The better 
homes, the more general education of our people, the 
better health and the reduction of the death rate, the 
new machinery, the new artisans, the new roads and 
river channels, the forest conservation, the development 


8 


of water-power, of agriculture, of irrigation, of the arts 
and sciences, all must feel, and that for generations to 
come, the handicap of our enormous expenditures be¬ 
cause of war. 

As Franklin K. Lane, while Secretary of the Interior, 
replied when asked once what he would do if he had the 
war money at his disposal to expend upon constructive 
work, he would take the carnotite ores of the West, re¬ 
duce them to radium, and eliminate one-half the cancer. 
He would go scientifically into the business of finding 
out what is in our mountains. He would search out the 
deposits of potash in kelp and valley. He would elimi¬ 
nate the fly and mosquito, and build up a better na¬ 
tional health. He said: 

“So is it not plain that if the world would spend upon 
man-making rather than upon man-killing, wonderful things 
might be accomplished? . . . The curse of war and prep¬ 
aration for war is not that men die, but that they do not 
live to do their share towards the solution of the problems 
of social and commercial life. . . . Such a people as ours, 
encouraged by a century of peace, would develop a civiliza¬ 
tion that not only materially, but artistically would surpass 
anything which the world has ever seen.” 

Common sense leads us all to wish that the expense 
of collective killing might cease. As Mr. Winston Spen¬ 
cer Churchill, English First Lord of the Admiralty be¬ 
fore the war, speaking at that time on the expenses of 
the killing system, remarked in substance, “What a 
wasteful, purposeless, futile folly it all is; what a stupid, 
unnatural chapter in the history of human endeavor.” 

In Ways More Serious Than Money 

And yet the least of the influences leading to our will 
to end war is that the business costs money. Belgium 
did not stop to count the cost when she was overrun by 
Germany; neither did France. England’s decision to 
enter with her standing army of only 100,000 upon a 


9 


continental land war seemed well-nigh suicidal. When 
once it was clear to the United States that the only way 
to end the war was to defeat the central powers of Eu¬ 
rope, we joined in the job, regardless of cost. It was so 
with all the belligerents. 

But war means costs of a more serious nature—costs 
in erroneous thinking and twisted judgments. For ex¬ 
ample, there are honest and intelligent men who believe 
that war is a divine institution and as such it is bene¬ 
ficial and desirable. This is the argument of the Yon 
Moltkes, Bernhardis, Maudes, and of professional sol¬ 
diers generally. Mr. Hudson Maxim argues in his De¬ 
fenceless America that war is desirable because it secures 
the “survival of the fit.” It is pointed out that war is 
a wholesome moral influence, increasing, and often 
creating, the virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice. 
They say that war gives rise to efficiency, courage, and 
discipline; that war has made powerful States possible, 
and the powerful States have given to us the arts, liter¬ 
atures, religions. They tell us that war gives play to 
physical virility and advances the meritorious traits of 
keenness and alertness; that it decides differences, 
promotes progress, and prevents overpopulation, an im¬ 
portant economic fact for human society. They go on 
to argue that war is the natural expression of human 
nature, that man is a fighter, and by the means of war 
he reaches to the supreme height of self-sacrifice, and 
therefore of his moral possibilities. As long as human 
nature remains as it is, differences are inevitable; hence 
the fighting instinct, the love of adventure, the human 
impulse following in the steps of honor and justice, will 
mean war for the human race throughout time. Thus 
wars always have been and always will be. The history 
of the world has been practically a continuous history 
of human warfare. One authority finds that through¬ 
out nearly 3,500 years there have been 227 years of 


10 


peace—thirteen years of war to one of peace. Because 
of such facts war is inevitable. So run the arguments 
for war. 

But of course these half-truth arguments illustrate 
practically every fallacy known to logic. If men really 
believed that war is a divine and helpful institution, 
they would systematically urge and promote it. The 
universal aim would be to bring about war for the pur¬ 
pose of furthering the divinity of the institution, quite 
as now we aim to spiritualize the church. By the same 
course of reasoning we should burn houses to benefit 
firemen, spread disease germs to improve our doctors, 
rob banks systematically, and shoot up our neighbors 
generously unto the efficiency of our police and the good 
of our souls. 

Again, the history of all animals, including the human 
animal, is not a history of fixed instincts, but a history 
of the modifications of their instincts. The social prog¬ 
ress which we have made is due to the modification of 
our human instincts. We not only modify our instincts, 
but we direct them to new objects and subordinate them 
to other and higher instincts. If there seem to be an 
inevitable conflict among men, there is also*an abiding 
instinct of mutual aid. Man is no longer a fighting 
animal. Men who fight are shut up. The great martial 
nations of the world have had a hard time. Most of 
them have passed away. National pride, like individual 
pride, ends in a paradox, and ever tends to defeat itself. 
Might cannot be made synonymous with right. Most of 
us thought we were waging this war to overcome a na¬ 
tion that had not outgrown the fighting instinct. 

But perhaps no one fact shows the fallacy of the pro¬ 
war phrase-mongering as does the simple fact that wars 
are themselves waged avowedly for the purpose of end¬ 
ing war and of establishing peace. When the war is on, 
all the generals and statesmen tell us that. But, what- 


11 


ever the views of the military leaders, certainly the 
fathers and mothers give np their sons with pride and 
tears that the war may be ended by the only practical 
means they are able to see. At snch times war is seen 
to be an unmitigated evil, to be ended at whatever cost 
of blood and treasure. 

Furthermore, it is only in a most limited sense that 
preparation for war is an “insurance against war,” a 
“premium for the maintenance of peace.” To say that 
it is such an “insurance” is a fallacy. As I have pointed 
out in another place, insurance is a contract by the terms 
of which a first party agrees to pay to a second party a 
certain specified small amount, called a premium, for 
which the second party agrees to pay the first party a 
much larger sum in case of a contingency nominated in 
the agreement. Prior to this war we were spending 
annually upon our army and navy practically $300,000,- 
000. If that were a premium as an insurance against 
war, either one of two things would have happened; we 
would not have had a war, or, if we had a war, we would 
have received from some outside party a large sum of 
money as reimbursement for our losses. The facts are 
we paid the $300,000,000 annually, and that we had our 
war, for which we have paid many billions. In other 
words, we have paid the premium and the loss besides. 
That is all there is to the insurance argument. The 
fact that all of the leading nations had powerful navies 
in July, 1914, did not prevent them from going to war. 
In our present state of international anarchy, prepara¬ 
tion for war may be necessary. I believe that a rational 
amount of it is. But such preparation is not insurance. 
At best, it is a burglar-alarm. Great armaments do not 
insure peace; they tend to destroy peace. They do not 
exist to preserve peace; they are kept up for one pur¬ 
pose, and one purpose only; namely, to win in war. 
Armaments are for victory and conquest. 


12 


Thus the perversion of judgments represents a more 
serious cost than the matter of dollars and cents. The 
supporters of the war system do not distinguish clearly 
between physical and moral heroism. They seem to for¬ 
get that war takes men out of productive activities, thus 
reducing the veritable necessities of life. They do not 
reckon the loss to industry, the destruction of property, 
the crippling of beneficence, the scourge of disease, the 
ruin in terms of life, the injustices, the blood-red mad¬ 
ness, the despotism and night following the fights of 
armies, and the general hell of war. They ignore the 
fact that true freedom is found only in him who ruleth 
his own spirit. As long as men are ignorant, as long as 
evils prevail, as long as the forces of nature are unsub¬ 
dued, men may find ample opportunity to exercise their 
honor, heroism, sense of duty, love of glory, by attack¬ 
ing the inanimate foes—the floods, the fires, the famines, 
the diseases—a behavior calling for all the virtues of 
the soldier in war—indeed, a spiritual warfare where 
affections and sympathies will bring about those gener¬ 
osities and methods of justice which alone can create 
the “great society” that is to be. 

War is a monstrous perversion of the judgments and 
perspectives of men. The magnificence of war, called 
“moonshine” by General Sherman, is less possible than 
ever. Our armies and navies rest on fear rather than 
on reason; on hate—and that of no one in particular. 
The huge armaments of the world are a cruel slander 
against reason, a tribute to an utter lack of sincerity 
within and of any faith in the sincerity of others with¬ 
out. As said by Emerson, war is “an epidemic insanity.” 
Noah Worcester said in his “Solemn Review”: “War is, 
in fact, a heathenish and savage custom, most malig¬ 
nant, most desolating, and most horrible, and the great¬ 
est delusion, the greatest curse, that ever afflicted a 
guilty world.” Thomas Jefferson called war “the great- 


13 


est of human evils.” Franklin’s words, July 27, 1783, 
to Sir Joseph Banks, were: “There never was a good 
war or a bad peace.” Washington wrote of war in 1785 : 
“My first wish is to see this plague to mankind banished 
from the earth.” Gladstone called war the “original 
sin of nations.” John JFiske characterized war as an 
“intolerable nuisance.” It has been condemned as de¬ 
testable by Wellington, inadequate by Napoleon, self- 
defeating by Sheridan, and unreasonable by Grant. 
This ghastly institution, inherited out of savagery, must 
go the way of the other human perversions—human sac¬ 
rifice, duelling, witchcraft, thumbikin, lynching, slavery, 
the rack—for war is all of these and worse. What is 
wrong, as God lives, shall be overcome. Hence persists 
the will to end war. 

A STILL DEEPER REASON FOR THE WILL TO END WAR 
The Great Fact of Life 

There is, however, a reason for the will to end war 
deeper than the cost of it all, be the cost in terms of 
money or of wrong-headedness. It is found in the fact 
that war runs counter to the basic principle of all life; 
namely, that life exists primarily that there may be 
more life. Every protoplasmic cell, every flower of the 
field, every child sent to school, every social worker, 
every courtship and marriage, every law, institution, in¬ 
vention, every worthy ideal, is an expression of this 
great fact of life struggling to produce more life. War, 
in practically all of its phases, is the antithesis of this 
principle. 

The rise of the conception of this truth can be traced 
only imperfectly. Our earliest ancestors seem to have 
apprehended it but dimly. Unable to use tools or fire, 
slowly developing the notion and habits of family life, 
frequently fighting literally tooth and nail, we think of 
them in the human scale as savages merely. Thus they 


14 


began—“savages.” Then, down the ages, cnnning grad¬ 
ually crept into the ends of their fingers, rude tools ex¬ 
tended the length of their arms, wild weapons expanded 
their powers of conquest, families united in clans—still 
fighting, to be sure, but no longer “savages,” we say, but 
“barbarians.” Later the claps multiplied into cities 
and States. The efficiency of their weapons increased. 
The spirit of competition grew stronger. Still living 
under the rule that might is right, they waged continu¬ 
ous and increasing wars against each other, unpeopling 
the world by feud and sword. As we have seen, it has 
been one year of peace for thirteen years of war. That 
we call “civilization.” 

But the process does not end there. The great prin¬ 
ciple of life has led some men out of savagery, out of 
barbarism, out of mere civilization, for a new hope is 
beckoning unto them, a larger revelation. These few 
have discovered themselves to be “members one of an¬ 
other.” They have beheld themselves related con¬ 
sciously, still more unconsciously related with each other 
around the globe. They have seen the vision of a uni¬ 
versal solidarity. Under this prime principle of life, 
the doctrine of strife has tended to give way—gradually, 
very gradually, but surely—to a creative belief in the 
social principle of mutuality, in a limitless human in¬ 
terrelation, in a world-wide co-operation. Thus men 
have the will to end war. 

And now, once again, therefore, men are listening 
more readily and sympathetically to schemes for some 
sort of an international co-operation or world brother¬ 
hood. Because of the war they believe more than ever 
that we needs must base our institutions upon this great 
fact of life—that, on the whole and in the long run, life 
exists that there may be more life. Such, they hold, is 
the supreme teaching of the religions—indeed, of plain 
reason. 


15 


Thus survives faith in the still more hopeful march 
toward the world’s “Gleam,” toward a new humanism 
indeed—international, world-wide, founded in law and 
justice—for life means that there must be more life. 
In the main, wars are inconsistent with this most funda¬ 
mental of all laws. Hence wars are foreordained, very 
gradually, but inevitabty, to cease. This is what Ralph 
Waldo Emerson meant when, in 1838, he said, in his 
address before the American Peace Society, “All history 
is the decline of war, though the slow decline.” 

THE WILL TO END WAR AN HISTORICAL FACT 

The will to end war prevailing through the centuries 
means more than a fear of the costs, more than a pious 
wish. It is an historical fact influencing the course of 
events. Out of it have arisen institutions and a worthy 
literature, both to be reckoned with. 

Beginnings of the Modern Peace Movement 
1815 

The modern peace movement had its beginning about 
the year 1815, a year which marked the dawn of an in¬ 
teresting period in the growth of the will to end war— 
indeed, in the development of a variety of social organi¬ 
zations and reconstructions. For example, at that time 
forces were converging toward a more militant democ¬ 
racy, soon to express itself in a marked extension of 
public education, of agitation for woman suffrage, of 
temperance, and of various labor and political reforms. 
It was at the beginning of the transcendental movement 
of Kant, Schelling, Emerson. It was the year of the 
useless battle of New Orleans and of the waste of Water¬ 
loo; of the beginning of the Holy Alliance, and hence 
of the Monroe Doctrine. In that year Belgium was 
taken from France, to be neutralized in 1831. In that 
year the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg was added to Hoi- 


16 


land and Headed toward her neutralization in 1867. It 
was the year in which the Treaty of Ghent was ratified, 
the instrument which we may well believe ended forever 
international wars between English-speaking peoples. 
It was the year that marked the Congress of Vienna, 
with its league of nations that established the Kingdom 
of the Netherlands, united Norway and Sweden, neu¬ 
tralized Switzerland, reorganized Germany, maintained 
a sort of peace in Europe for over a generation, and 
directed its statesmanship for a century, yet a league 
that lamentably failed. It was the year in which Ben¬ 
jamin Lundy began the first anti-slavery societies, the 
beginning of the end in America of the institution of 
slavery. Humphrey Davy invented his safety lamp dur¬ 
ing that year. But more important than any of these, 
it was the year that found the world sick and tired of 
“seven,” “thirtjq” and “one hundred years” wars, of 
Napoleonic slaughters, and of the miseries following the 
French Revolution, the American Revolution, the War 
of 1812. Battles had for the time quite consumed in 
their blasting flames the war passions of men. The 
blood lust of nations had been surfeited by 1815. The 
will to end war had been aroused. 

Beginning of Peace Societies 

As a result, and for the first time in the history of 
the world, 'peace societies began. In that year, 1815, 
three peace societies, no one knowing of the plans of the 
others, sprang into being. The first was founded Au¬ 
gust 16, at the home of Mr. David Low Dodge, in New 
York City; another in Ohio, December 2; another, upon 
the initiative of Noah Worcester, December 26, at the 
home of William Ellery Channing, Boston. The follow¬ 
ing year peace societies began in Europe. The oldest 
existing peace society, “The Peace Society,” London, 
was formed June 14, 1816. Its offices are at 47 New 
Broad Street, London, E. C. 


17 


The peace societies had an influence. During the 
nineteenth century the will to end war increased 
markedly. While, because of his part in inserting arbi¬ 
tration clauses in the treaty between this country and 
Great Britain, in 1794, John Jay was burned in effigy 
in the streets of Boston, yet since that time there have 
been over six hundred international arbitrations be¬ 
tween various countries of the world. The most rapid 
increase in the number of these treaties occurred within 
the last generation. The importance of these treaties 
is illustrated by the fact that the violation of one of 
them turned a continental war into a world war. This 
peace sentiment grew in no small measure out of the 
work of the peace societies. 

The countless tons of pamphlets published by these 
societies played their part toward expressing this will to 
end war. The first tract professedly and exclusively 
published for the promotion of peace was published by 
Mr. David Low Dodge, merchant of New York City and 
“father of the peace movement,” in the year 1809. To¬ 
day tons of such literature are being constantly spread 
before the world. This first pamphlet by Mr. Dodge, 
called “The Mediator’s Kingdom Not of This World,” 
and a second by the same author, entitled “War incon¬ 
sistent with the Religion of Jesus Christ,” published in 
1812, both met with pronounced opposition from clergy 
and laity. 

Noah Worcester had great difficulty in finding a pub¬ 
lisher for his essay, “A Solemn Review of the Custom 
of War.” It was published on Christmas day, 1814, but 
only on condition that it be issued “anonymously.” Yet 
this tract was and is spread broadcast, appearing in 
translated form in many languages. Its influence has 
been profound. Largely because of it, peace societies 
spread rapidly. It converted William Ladd, founder of 
the American Peace Society. In spite of the war, peace 


18 


pamphlets of today are sought far and near. Further¬ 
more, and again in spite of the war, no one has today to 
apologize for writing in defense of international peace. 
Indeed, that is what most writers are writing about and 
all political parties pleading for. The war, we were 
told, was “a war to end war.” 

Following the organization of the societies in New 
York, Ohio, and Massachusetts, we are able to record 
the organization of a peace society in Portland, Maine, 
January 31, 1817; in Providence, Rhode Island, March 
20, 1817; in Vermont, 1819; in North Carolina, 1819; 
in Pennsylvania, December, 1822; Windham County, 
Connecticut, 1826; Hartford County, Connecticut, 1828. 
By 1828 there were peace societies in New Hampshire 
and Georgia. Indeed, it was estimated at that time that 
there were over fifty peace societies in the United States 
alone. As an indication of the interest in the movement, 
it is known that by 1833 there was a county peace so¬ 
ciety in every county in the State of Connecticut. By 
that year they existed also in France, Ireland, England, 
Nova Scotia, and Canada. 

American Peace Society 

At a meeting of the Maine Peace Society at Minot, 
Maine, February 10, 1826, a motion was carried to form 
a national peace society. Minot was the home of Wil¬ 
liam Ladd. The first constitution for a national peace 
society was drawn by this illustrious “Apostle of Peace,” 
at the time the corresponding secretary of the Massa¬ 
chusetts Peace Society. The constitution was provision¬ 
ally adopted, with alterations, February 18, 1828; but 
the society was finally and officially organized through 
the influence of Mr. Ladd, May 8, 1828, and with the 
aid of David Low Dodge, in New York City. As Mr. 
Dodge wrote in the minutes of the New York Peace 
Society: “The New York Peace Society resolved to be 


19 


merged in the American Peace Society, . . . which, 
in fact, was a dissolution of the old New York Peace 
Society, formed 16 August, 1815, and the American, 
May, 1828, was substituted in its place.” 

Today this society, with headquarters at Washington, 
is an incorporated organization. It initiates the Amer¬ 
ican peace congresses, attempts to co-operate with the 
government, and to influence legislation in behalf of 
arbitrations and international good will. It maintains 
a lecture bureau, a library of peace information, and 
distributes tons of literature to writers, speakers, schools, 
colleges, and libraries. It co-operates in every possible 
way with other effective organizations, particularly the 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in this 
country and abroad. Its program, outlined so convinc¬ 
ingly by Mr. Ladd in 1840, is the basis of The Hague 
conferences, of the conception of a world governed by 
self-imposed laws. It is a program based upon Amer¬ 
ican political experience, and calling, therefore, for a 
Congress and High Court of Nations to the end that 
international relations may be conducted in the interests 
of that concrete justice which flows only from law mu¬ 
tually made and proclaimed. The American Peace So¬ 
ciety believes that by compromise, intelligence, and good 
will the nations will wish increasingly to develop for 
their interests and protection a more perfect union of 
themselves, a union built upon laws and not men, a so¬ 
ciety of all the nations resting upon the free consent of 
the governed. It believes that established States, large 
and small, will remain free, sovereign, and independent; 
that they will always retain certain rights, such as the 
right to exist, to conserve their independence and well 
being, to preserve their territory and jurisdiction over 
it, to be treated as equals before the law, to expect every 
respect and protection from their sister States in the 


20 


maintenance of these rights. It believes also that States 
can and should be led to observe certain duties, such as 
the duty to commit no* unjust act against an innocent 
State, to interfere with the rights of no other State; in 
short, to cherish and uphold the laws which they them¬ 
selves have passed and accepted. 

As far as the American Peace Society adheres to a 
program, the program is that. It measures its work by 
those standards. Upon them it bases its hope for that 
governed world where wars shall be outlawed and laws 
enthroned. 

Until the last decade the peace movement of America 
was almost exclusively the American Peace Society and 
its work. And that work was a worthy and notable 
work. The story of it would itself fill many volumes. 
As I have said elsewhere, William Ladd was pleading, in 
1828, for a Congress of Nations. It was the American 
Peace Society that stood for a “Congress of Nations for 
the amicable adjustment of international disputes” in 
its Fourth Annual Report of 1832. In February, 1835, 
a peace petition, “signed by several thousand persons,” 
was presented to the legislature of the State of Massa¬ 
chusetts, with the result that that body adopted the fol¬ 
lowing resolution, first peace resolution to be adopted by 
a legislature: 

“ Resolved , That, in the opinion of this legislature, some 
mode should be established for the amicable and final ad¬ 
justment of all international disputes instead of to resort 
to war. 

“Resolved, That the Governor of this Commonwealth be 
requested to communicate a copy of the above report and 
of the resolutions annexed to the Executive of each of the 
States, to be laid before the legislature thereof, inviting a 
co-operation for the advancement of the object in view.” 

Again, through the influence of the American Peace 
Society, a joint committee of the Senate and House of 


21 


Representatives of the State of Massachusetts adopted 
unanimously, in 1837, in the Senate and practically 
unanimously in the Lower House other resolutions con¬ 
demning war as a means of adjusting international dis¬ 
putes, approving a "Congress or Court of Nations,” and 
recommending to the Executive of the United States 
negotiations, "with a view to effect so important an 
arrangement.” The following year the Massachusetts 
legislature passed four other resolutions, the third of 
which reads: 

“Resolved, That the institution of a Congress of Nations 
for the purpose of framing a code of international law and 
establishing a High Court of Arbitration for the settlement 
of controversies between nations is a scheme worthy of the 
careful attention and consideration of all enlightened gov¬ 
ernments.” 

The fourth resolution was as follows: 

“Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor of this 
Commonwealth be requested to transmit a copy of these 
resolves, with the accompanying report, to the President of 
the United States and to the Executive of each of the States, 
to be communicated to their respective legislatures, inviting 
their co-operation in the, proposed object.” 

The Society submitted petitions to the United States 
Congress An 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, and 1849. 
Just prior to 1840 the agitation for a Congress of Na¬ 
tions for the purpose of establishing an international 
tribunal was, because of the work of the American Peace 
Society, popular and widespread. In 1849, for example, 
Richard Cobden submitted to the House of Commons 
on the 12th of June a proposal that England enter into 
communication with foreign powers for the purpose of 
referring matters in dispute to the decision of arbi¬ 
trators. Meeting with the opposition of the Palmerston 
cabinet, the proposition was rejected by a vote of 176 to 
79. In 1851 the American Peace Society presented, 


through Robert C. Winthrop, a petition to the United 
States Senate, with the result that Mr. Foote, chairman 
of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, affirmed 
that arbitration as a system was “perfectly reasonable,” 
and with the further result that the committee unani¬ 
mously reported: 

“That it would be proper and desirable for the Govern¬ 
ment of these United States, whenever practicable, to secure, 
in its treaties with other nations, a provision for referring 
to the decision of umpires all misunderstandings that can¬ 
not be satisfactorily adjusted by amicable negotiation, in 
the first instance, before a resort to hostilities shall be had.” 

In February, 1853, largely through the efforts of the- 
American Peace Society, particularly because of the 
work of its President, the Hon. William Jay, the Com¬ 
mittee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate 
adopted the following resolution: 

“ Resolved , That the Senate advise the President to secure, 
whenever it may be practicable, a stipulation in all treaties 
hereafter entered into with other nations, providing for the 
adjustment of any misunderstanding or controversy which 
may arise between the contracting parties by referring the 
same to the decision of disinterested and impartial arbi¬ 
trators to be mutually chosen.” 

The principle of arbitration was established between 
this country and Great Britain in a treaty relative to 
fishing grounds, under date of June 5, 1854. Among 
other things, the treaty provided that: 

“The Commissioners shall name some third person to act 
as an arbitrator or umpire in any case or cases on which 
they may themselves differ in opinion. 

“The high contracting parties hereby solemnly engage to 
consider the decisions of the Commissioners conjointly, or 
of the arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be, as abso¬ 
lutely final and conclusive in each case decided upon by 
them or him respectively.” 

The American Peace Society continued to plead with 


23 


Congress and State legislatures for a Congress and High 
Court of Nations and for stipulated arbitration up to the 
opening of the Civil War. In 1866 it sent a deputation 
to Congress with a petition in behalf of stipulated arbi¬ 
tration and a Congress and High Court of Nations. In 
1872 the Society presented a new memorial to Congress 
in behalf of a permanent system of arbitration and a 
High Court of Nations, a petition which was signed by 
some twelve thousand citizens. The result was that, 
with the aid of Mr. Charles Sumner, there was reported 
from the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United 
States Senate a series of resolutions advocating a per¬ 
manent system of arbitration. 

The next year Mr. Henry Richard secured a parlia¬ 
mentary declaration from the House of Commons, under 
date of July 8, as follows: 

“That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, 
praying that she will be graciously pleased to instruct her 
principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into 
communication with foreign Powers, with a view to the 
further improvement of international law and the establish¬ 
ment of a general and permanent system of international 
arbitration.” 

In 1874, because of the influence of the American 
Peace Society, petitions from different parts of the coun¬ 
try were again sent to Congress, with the result that on 
the 17th day of June of that year the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives unanimously adopted resolutions in favor of 
arbitration, and the Senate approved them also with 
unanimity on the 25th of that month. 

The Society sent repeated petitions through the 
eighties to the Congress, calling attention to the desira¬ 
bility of a conference of the States of this Hemisphere 
in the interest of peace and better trade relations. Fol¬ 
lowing its memorials, ten bills were presented in Con¬ 
gress for such a Congress of all the Americas, until 


24 


finally the Pan-American Congress, duly authorized by 
Congress, met in the autumn of 1889. In 1888, 235 
members of the British Parliament forwarded a com¬ 
munication to the President and Congress of the United 
States, urging the conclusion of a treaty of arbitration 
between this country and Great Britain. Petitions and 
memorials from multitudes of individuals and associa¬ 
tions across the country, and mass meetings, particularly 
in New York, supported the British proposal. As a re¬ 
sult of this movement the Committee on Foreign Rela¬ 
tions of the Senate reported a joint resolution embody¬ 
ing the principle of arbitration in the case of differences 
or disputes arising between this government and other 
nations. January 11, 1897, a permanent treaty of arbi¬ 
tration between the United States and Great Britain 
was signed, but failed of ratification in the Senate. 

Perhaps the most important illustration from those 
days of the prevailing interest in arbitration was the 
publication by the Government of the United States, in 
1898, of John Bassett Moore’s six volumes dealing ex¬ 
haustively with the history and digest of the interna¬ 
tional arbitrations to which the United States had been 
a party. 

Rules governing the procedure of international tri¬ 
bunals of arbitration were discussed by the Institute of 
International Law at Geneva, in 1874, and again at The 
Hague, in 1875. Another set, submitted by a committee 
of lawyers at the Universal Peace Congress, Chicago, 
1893, revealed something of the attention serious- 
minded men were giving to the judicial settlement of 
international disputes. John Hay, Secretary of State, 
in his instructions to the American delegates to The 
Hague Conference of 1899, submitted an “annex,” set¬ 
ting forth a plan for an international tribunal. 

Many resolutions passed by many conferences indi¬ 
cate clearly the wisdom of William Ladd, founder of the 


25 


American Peace Society, as set forth especially in his 
essay on a “Congress of Nations.” The most significant 
current expression of that wisdom is found in the “Dec¬ 
laration of the Rights and Duties of Nations/’ adopted 
by the American Institute of International Law at its 
first session, in Washington, January 6, 1916, and in 
the Recommendations of Habana, adopted by the Amer¬ 
ican Peace Society January 22, 1917, and by the Amer¬ 
ican Institute of International Law at its second session, 
in the city of Habana, January 23, 1917. 

Thus the American Peace Society has been a no in¬ 
significant factor in the rise of the will to end war. 

The First Peace Periodicals 

Periodicals also have played a part in the will to end 
war. The first periodical devoted exclusively to the 
cause of international peace was entitled “The Friend 
of Peace,” the product of Noah Worcester’s intelligent 
and consecrated spirit, the first number being published 
in Philadelphia in 1816. Worcester had seen service in 
the American Revolution. He knew war, therefore, at 
first hand. For twelve years he published his worthy 
periodical at his own expense. It is profitable reading 
still. T^e title page of the first copy reads: 

The 

FRIEND OF PEACE, 

containing 

A Special Interview 

between 

The President of the United States and Omar, 
an officer dismissed for duelling. 

Six Letters from Omar to the President, 
with 

A Review of the Power Assumed by Rulers Over the Laws 
of God and the Lives of Men, in Making War, 
and 

Omar's Solitary Reflections. 


26 


The Whole Reported 
By Philo Pacificus, 

Author of “A Solemn Review of the Custom of War.” 

“Only by pride cometh contention.”— Solomon. 

“Happy is he that condemneth not himself, in that thing 
which he alloweth.”— Paul. 

PHILADELPHIA. 

Published for the Author, 

By Kimber and Sharpless, No. 93 Market Street. 

Merritt, Printer. 

1816. 

Later pages of this magazine contain analytical ac¬ 
counts of campaigns, war news of current interest, peace 
sermons and exhortations, peace society notes, many 
letters, all constituting suggestive historical source books 
of that early period. It is of interest to note that No. 4 
of the series went through seven editions in America. 

The oldest peace periodical today is The Herald of 
Peace, published by the Peace Society, London, the first 
number appearing January, 1819. 

Mr. Ladd’s Harbinger of Peace first appeared, under 
the auspices of the American Peace Society, in May, 
1828. The first number starts with a “Circular Letter 
of the American Peace Society,” written by the editor. 
The letter begins with a historical summary of the peace 
movement and closes with a staunch appeal for inter¬ 
national peace, mentioning at that early period the need 
of a “congress of nations.” 

Por the months of May and June, 1831, The Har¬ 
binger of Peace was increased to twice its original size 
and the name changed to the Calumet. This was pub¬ 
lished bimonthly by the American Peace Society, under 
almost the exclusive editorship of Mr. Ladd, until 1835, 
the last number being for the months of March and 
April of that year. Its editorials, essays, and poems are 
for the most part excellent in thought and style, and, 


27 


together with the many reports, they present an inter¬ 
esting picture of early nineteenth-century life in 
America. 

In 1835 the American Peace Society “relinquished” 
the Calumet for the American Advocate of Peace, 
which had been established by William Watson, of the 
Connecticut Peace Society, in Hartford, beginning June, 
1834. The first number of the American Advocate of 
Peace, “put out for the American Peace Society,” was 
printed in June, 1835. It continued to he published at 
the headquarters of the American Peace Society, in 
Hartford, until the death of William Watson, Novem¬ 
ber, 1836; after which the society moved to Boston and 
began there the publication of the Advocate of Peace 
in June, 1837. From August, 1884, to June, 1892, the 
official organ was called The American Advocate of 
Peace; but since it has been called again simply Advo¬ 
cate of Peace. The virility of this monthly expression 
of the peace movement in America is shown by the fact 
that its circulation increased under the editorship of 
Dr. Benjamin F. Trueblood* by over thirteen times that 
at the beginning of his administration. 

Peace Congresses 

From the small beginnings, as briefly told, peace 
sentiment extended rapidly in this country and abroad. 
The first international peace congress was initiated at 
the headquarters of the American Peace Society in Bos¬ 
ton during the month of July, 1841, and held in London 
in 1843, with an attendance of about three hundred 
delegates. Five years later, Elihu Burritt, who had 
founded the “League of Universal Brotherhood” in 
1846, a league of many thousand members on both sides 

* Because of ill health Dr. Trueblood resigned the secre¬ 
taryship of the American Peace Society in May, 1915. He 
died at his home, in Massachusetts, October 26, 1916. 



28 


of the ocean, was able to bring together a second and 
more representative peace congress in Brussels. The 
following year, and through Burritt’s influence, there 
was organized a third congress in Paris, presided over 
by Victor Hugo, with over 2,000 delegates in attendance. 
In 1850 Burritt successfully promoted a fourth inter¬ 
national peace congress in Frankfort, and in 1851 a 
fifth, which was held in London. It is to the credit of 
his time that Elihu Burritt, one time secretary of the 
American Peace Society, and editor of the Advocate 
of Peace, was recognized as the man of vision, prophet 
and seer. It is to the credit of our time that it agrees 
with James Brown Scott that “the lowly son of New 
Britain has entered into the company of the immortals.” 
A congress was held in Edinburgh in 1853, in Geneva 
in 1867, in Paris in 1878, in Brussels in 1882, and in 
Berne in 1884. 

The second series of international peace congresses 
was proposed in 1888. In this series there have been 
twenty-one, as follows: Paris, 1889; London, 1890; 
Rome, 1891; Berne, 1892; Chicago, 1893; Anvers, 1894; 
Budapest, 1896; Hamburg, 1897; Paris, 1900; Glas¬ 
gow, 1901; Monaco, 1902; Rouen et Havre, 1903; Bos¬ 
ton, 1904; Lucerne, 1905; Milan, 1906; Munich, 1907; 
London, 1908; Stockholm, 1910; Geneva, 1912; The 
Hague, 1913, and San Francisco, 1915. 

There was an American Conference of International 
Arbitration held in Washington, April, 1896, and an¬ 
other in the same city, January, 1904. The Pan-Amer¬ 
ican congresses, first proposed by Bolivar in 1824, have 
been many. As a result of the one held upon the initia¬ 
tive of Secretary James G. Blaine, in Washington, in 
the winter of 1889-90, the Bureau of American Repub¬ 
lics, now the Pan-American Union, was organized. A 
Pan-American Congress was held in Mexico City, 1901- 


29 


1902; in Rio de Janeiro, 1906; in Buenos Aires, 1910. 
We now have recurring Pan-American Financial, Scien¬ 
tific, and International Law conferences. 

The Interparliamentary Union 

The Interparliamentary Union, with a membership 
of over three thousand parliamentarians, representing 
some twenty nations, was first mooted by Messrs. 
Fischoff and Richard in 1875. Plans for its organiza¬ 
tion were halted by the Russo-Turkish War; but, 
through the influence of William Randal Cremer, a pre¬ 
liminary meeting of parliamentarians from Great Brit¬ 
ain and France was held in Paris in the autumn of 1888. 
In June, 1889, the organization was perfected at Paris, 
and Frederick Passy was elected president. Fifty-five 
French parliamentarians, thirty British, together with 
representatives from the Italian, Spanish, Danish, Hun¬ 
garian, the Belgian, and the United States parliaments, 
were in attendance. The representative from the United 
States was Mr. J. R. Whiting. Germany entered the 
union at the next meeting, in London, July, 1890. In 
1913 the Union held its eighteenth annual Conference 
at The Hague. At the meeting of the Interparliament¬ 
ary Council held at The Hague, June 5, 1920, it was 
voted to hold the nineteenth conference at Stockholm 
in 1921. 

Arbitrations 

The first resolution passed by any government spe¬ 
cifically in favor of the principle of arbitration was 
pushed through the House of Commons in 1873 by 
Henry Richard, who for forty years was secretary of 
the London Peace Society and who for over twenty years 
was a member of the English Parliament. In the last 
half dozen years nearly one hundred arbitration treaties, 
providing that certain questions must ‘and others may 
be settled by arbitration, have been passed by various na- 


tions of the world. The United States has been a party 
to over a score of these. In 1907 Costa Rica, Guate¬ 
mala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Salvador agreed to 
submit to arbitration all questions which might arise 
between any two of them not possible of settlement by 
diplomacy. Indeed, it is to the credit of these Central 
American States that in their Central American Court 
they actually set up, albeit for a time only, the first, and 
so far the only international court of justice in the his¬ 
tory of the world. 

International Plans and Organizations 

The rise of international bodies possessing more or 
less legislative power is impressive. The Book of Gen¬ 
esis tells of four kings waging war with five other kings 
in the Yale of Siddim. Arbitration was a familiar and 
successful practice throughout the known history of 
Greece. Probably antedating this Biblical example of 
international co-operation was the Amphictvonic Coun¬ 
cil of a dozen Greek tribes watching over the religious 
interests of the tribes, exercising genuine judicial au¬ 
thority, and, in its representative capacity, regulating 
both peace and war for fifteen centuries under the terms 
of a genuine intertribal treaty of arbitration. 

If we may believe Herodotus, a similar “league” of 
twelve cities, with headquarters at Helice, existed in 
prehistoric Greece. Out of this developed the better- 
known Achaean League, in 280 B. C. While this 
Achaean League presents a picture marred by human 
weakness and discord, it also reveals man in his reach 
toward international organization, often with warlike 
purposes, it is true, but federal and co-operative never¬ 
theless. For over a century it dominated Greek political 
life, and when, in 146 B. C., it finally fell, all Greece 
fell with it. The HUtolian League, contemporary with 
the Achaean, is another, and perhaps as effective, illus- 


31 


tration of federated interstatecraft. There were other 
leagues, such as the Thessalian and Boeotian. The 
Lycian Confederacy, comprising twenty-three cities, the 
large cities having three votes, the small cities two, was 
a judicial organization in the days of Vespasian. 

Virgil’s fourth Eclogue, picturing a return of the 
Golden Age, was Messianic in its prophecy; while in the 
first Georgic war is condemned; and in the first book of 
the JEneid, written during the first generation of our 
Christian Era, Jupiter is made to agree with Isaiah as 
to the future of war. The Helvetic Union, beginning 
1308, was organized for purposes of defense and peace, 
and consisted of a diet with a court of judges. Dante, 
in his “Convivio” of the early fourteenth century, pre¬ 
sents an argument for a universal empire based upon 
force; and in his De Monarchia, Book I, he has written 
an impassioned plea for a world monarchy or league of 
peace. Erasmus wrote, in 1509, his “Encomium 
Morioe ,”—“Praise of Folly”—in which he attacks the 
institution of war; and, disappointed at the failure of 
the plan to hold a peace congress at Cambray, he wrote, 
in 1517, his “Querela Pads ”—“The Complaint of 
Peace”—which is fresh and convincing material for the 
peace workers even of today. One wishing to know 
more of the best-known peace workers and plans of the 
seventeenth century is referred to Emeric Cruce, 
Grotius, Sully, and William Penn; of the next century, 
to Abbe de Saint-Pierre, Jean Jacques Rousseau, 
Jeremy Bentham, and Immanuel Kant. 

Mutual protection and advancement of trade brought 
nearly a hundred towns of northern Europe together in 
the Hanseatic League of Peace of the thirteenth, four¬ 
teenth, and fifteenth centuries. The dominating influ¬ 
ence of this powerful organization for so many years was 
second only in importance to the very fact of its exist¬ 
ence at all. 


32 


In fine, the “international mind” was brooding back 
there in the Yale of Siddim, in the temples of Apollo 
and Demeter, in Helice and the groves of iEgium, in 
iEtolia, and in the Hansa of four, five, and six centuries 
ago. It has persisted increasingly through the centuries. 

Reference has already been made to all of the Euro¬ 
pean powers, save Turkey, meeting in the “Congress of 
Vienna” in 1815. There have since been many other 
international congresses. National independence came 
to Greece as the result of a protocol signed by the great 
powers in congress assembled at London in 1830. The 
Treaty of London in 1831, ratified by six powers within 
a year, established the independence of Holland and 
Belgium. It was a congress of the powers at Paris in 
1856 that made the close of the Crimean War possible. 
It was a congress of representatives from sixteen nations 
at Geneva, in 1864, that established the Red Cross So¬ 
ciety. It was a congress of the powers in London, in 
1867, that neutralized the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. 
It was a congress of national representatives at St. 
Petersburg, in 1868, that restricted the nature of bullets 
in times of war. It was an international congress at 
Brussels, in 1874, that placed definite restrictions upon 
the practices of war. A congress of nations at Berne in 
1874 established the International Postal Union. The 
Congress of Berlin, meeting at the home of Bismarck in 
1878, fixed the map of eastern Europe and closed the 
Russo-Turkish War. Indeed, since 1875 the number of 
international meetings has increased greatly. There are 
today approximately 1,000 international organizations. 
During the year 1912 there were approximately one hun¬ 
dred and thirty international conferences. And more 
impressive, perhaps, than any of these international 
conferences already mentioned have been the Geneva 
Tribunal, which settled the Alabama claims in 1872; the 


33 


Paris Tribunal, which settled the seals controversy in 
1893; and The Hague Tribunal, which settled the North 
Atlantic Coast Fisheries dispute with Great Britain, 
lasting through three generations, in 1910. 

Peace Foundations 

The will to end war has found expression in perma¬ 
nent institutions and foundations. The World Peace 
Foundation of Boston, for example, is a corporation 
with an endowment of $1,000,000, left by Edwin Ginn. 
This foundation, begun in 1910, states in its by-laws 
that its purpose is to educate the people of all nations 
to the full knowledge of the waste and destruction of 
war, its evil effects on present social conditions and the 
well being of future generations, and to promote inter¬ 
national justice and the brotherhood of men; and, gen¬ 
erally, by every practical means to promote peace and 
good will among all mankind. 

Mr. Andrew Carnegie was a veritable embodiment of 
the will to end war. He founded the Carnegie Endow¬ 
ment for International Peace December 14, 1910, and 
created a board of trustees, to whom he transferred 
$10,000,000, the revenue of which is administered for 
hastening the abolition of international war. February 
10, 1914, he established the Church Peace Union, setting 
aside for its purposes $2,000,000. He placed at the dis¬ 
posal of the Dutch Government $1,500,000 for a Palace 
of Peace at The Hague as a fitting place for a library of 
international law and a court of arbitration. The con¬ 
struction of the palace was begun in 1907; it was com¬ 
pleted in 1913 and dedicated August 28 of that year. 
Mr. Carnegie provided $100,000 for the construction of 
a building for the Central American Court of Justice, 
which building was located at Cartargo. When this 
structure was destroyed by earthquake, in 1910, he pro- 


34 


vided another $100,000 for the construction of a new 
building, which was located at San Jose, Costa Rica. 
The Pan-American Union building, located in Washing¬ 
ton, represents also the generosity of Mr. Carnegie. At 
the laying of the corner-stone of this building, May 11, 
1908, Mr. Elihu Root, then Secretary of State, delivered 
an address in which he said: 

“The public spirit and enthusiasm for the good of hu¬ 
manity, which have inspired an American citizen, Mr. An¬ 
drew Carnegie, in his administration of a great fortune, 
have led him to devote the adequate sum of three quarters 
of a million dollars to the construction of this build¬ 
ing. . . . 

“The graceful courtesy of the twenty republics who have 
agreed upon the capital of the United States for the home 
of this International Union, the deep appreciation of that 
courtesy shown by the American Government and this rep¬ 
resentative American citizen, and the work to be done 
within the walls that are to rise on this site cannot fail to 
be powerful influences towards the creation of a spirit that 
will solve all disputed questions of the future and preserve 
the peace of the Western World.” 

The building was dedicated April 26, 1910, and is in 
itself an expression of the will to maintain peace between 
the American republics. The important fact is, not that 
Mr. Carnegie saw fit to give these munificent sums, but 
that he was himself an expression of the common will to 
end war. 

There are institutions and foundations abroad, such 
as the Bureau Internationale de la Paix; the Nobel 
Foundation, with its generous annual prize for the most 
effective work in behalf of international peace; the peace 
societies and publications of Britain, France, Germany, 
Austria, Italy, and practically all of the other countries 
of Europe. 

The will to end war is an international fact. 


35 


The two Hague Conferences 

The chief encouragements in the modem growth to¬ 
ward a practical solution of the problem of war have 
been the international conferences at The Hague, the 
first beginning May 18, 1899, and the second June 15, 
1907. 

The First Hague Conference 

The Czar’s rescript of August 12-24, 1898, inaugu¬ 
rated an era of discussion. This letter, resulting in the 
First Hague Conference, was an expression of the grad¬ 
ually growing will to end war. Hugo Grotius’ classic, 
entitled “The Eights of War and Peace,” a work which 
began our system of international law in the early seven¬ 
teenth century; such books as “Lay Down Your Arms,” 
written by Bertha von Suttner in 1889, and the work of 
the Polish Jew, Jean de Bloch, entitled “The Future of 
War,” appearing just before the Czar’s call to the na¬ 
tions in the interest of “a real and durable peace,” were 
a few of the evidences of that public sentiment which 
made the Czar’s letter possible. 

The First Conference at The Hague is one of the 
great facts of history. Among its contributions to the 
nations was the establishment of an international tri¬ 
bunal for the arbitration of international disputes. The 
article which established this tribunal is called “the 
Magna Charta of international law.” Since its opening, 
in April, 1901, the tribunal has settled to the satisfac¬ 
tion of all parties sixteen international disputes, a num¬ 
ber of which might easily have led to war. These cases 
have been as follows: 

First. The Pius Fund Case, involving issues between 
the United States and Mexico, 1902. 

Second. The Venezuela Preferential Case, Germany, 
Great Britain, and Italy vs. Venezuela et ah, involving 
eleven nations, 1904. 


36 


Third. The Japanese House Tax Case, being an issue 
between Japan and the three powers, Great Britain, 
France, and Germany, 1905. 

Fourth. The Muscat Dhows Case, covering issues 
lying between Great Britain and France, 1905. 

Fifth. The Casablanca Case, France vs. Germany, 
1909. 

Sixth. The Grisbadarna, or Maritime Boundary Case, 
Norway vs. Sweden, 1909. 

Seventh. The North Atlantic Coast Fisheries dispute, 
between the United States and Great Britain, 1910. 

Eighth. The Orinoco Steamship Company issue, be¬ 
tween the United States and Venezuela, 1910. 

Ninth. The Savarkar Case, France ys. Great Britain, 
1911. 

Tenth. The Russian Indemnity, or Interest Arrears 
Case, Russia vs. Turkey, 1912. 

Eleventh. The Canevaro Claim, Italy vs. Peru, 1912. 

Twelfth. The Manouba, or Seizure of French Ship 
Case, France vs. Italy, 1913. 

Thirteenth. The Carthage, or Seizure of French Ship 
Case, France vs. Italy, 1913. 

Fourteenth. The Tavignano, Kamouna, Gaulois 
Cases, France vs. Italy, 1913, submitted to a Commis¬ 
sion of Inquiry and settled out of court. 

Fifteenth. The Isle of Timor Case, Netherlands vs. 
Portugal, 1914. 

Sixteenth. Religious Property Case, Spain, France, 
Great Britain vs. Portugal, 1920. 

Seventeenth. French Claims vs. Peru (not yet pre¬ 
sented). 

Practically one hundred treaties, over a score of which 
have been signed by the United States, were passed 
pledging signatory powers to use this court, while prac¬ 
tically one hundred and fifty standing international 


treaties have been ratified, largely because of the influ¬ 
ence of the conference. 

The First Hague Conference provided further for an 
International Commission of Inquiry, which shall in¬ 
vestigate questions of fact prior to the beginnings of 
hostilities. It was this organization which settled the 
acute Dogger Bank dispute between England and Russia 
during the Russo-Japanese War. It was the immediate 
forerunner of the original Wilson Administration peace 
plan, the work of Mr. Bryan, a plan which is already 
enacted into the terms of thirty international treaties. 

The First Hague Conference provided for mediation 
in case of hostilities; it inspired the Temple of Peace, 
dedicated August 28, 1913, at a cost of one and one-half 
million dollars; it made possible a Second Conference; 
it revised the code of warfare in sixty articles designed 
for the improvement of the practices of war. The First 
Hague Conference aimed to supplant the old-time rule, 
that “In the midst of warfare, laws are silent/ 5 with 
“In the midst of warfare, laws shall rule/ 5 While it 
failed in this last respect, it was, as a whole, an expres¬ 
sion of a rational attempt to lessen the probabilities and 
horrors of war by the methods of a governed world under 
self-imposed laws. 

The twenty-six nations of the world, invited because 
they were represented at St. Petersburg, including 
twenty European, four Asiatic, and two American 
powers, were represented by one hundred delegates at 
that conference. As pointed out by Mr. Choate and 
others, it was there for the first time, in that First 
Hague Conference, that nations unanimously agreed 
that respect for law, rather than for mere compromise 
and diplomacy, must be the next great step in interna¬ 
tional adjustments. Following that conference, and 
largely because of it, the center of gravity in interna- 


38 


tional politics was changed for a time from an emphasis 
npon war to an emphasis npon peace. War, not peace, 
became anathema. So strong was the opposition to war 
that the warriors precipitated a war for fear of their 
overthrow. And the war having begun, the people out¬ 
side the original contestants would have nothing to do 
with the business except it be a war to end war. The 
First Hague Conference was an expression of the will to 
end war; more, it is proper to think of it as being in 
itself the beginning of the legislative branch of our in¬ 
ternational order that is to be. 

The Second Hague Conference 

The Second Hague Conference, suggested by the In¬ 
terparliamentary Hnion meeting at St. Louis, in 1904, 
and initiated by the United States Government, had its 
first meeting at The Hague, June 15, 1907, and lasted 
until the 18th of the following October. At this con¬ 
ference 44 of the world sovereignties, practically all of 
them, were represented by 174 delegates, picked men, 
including 15 ambassadors and 51 ministers. This con¬ 
ference, like the first, aimed to promote agencies calcu¬ 
lated to regulate or canalize the devastations of war. 
For example, it passed many measures for the protection 
of neutral States and neutral citizens; it provided that 
a distinct declaration of war must hereafter be made 
before hostilities can be begun; it agreed upon an Inter¬ 
national Prize Court, with power to try cases by inter¬ 
national law, a real international court aimed as a blow 
to piracy. The conference defined towns situated near 
fortified coasts to be unfortified towns, and, furthermore, 
that towns with submarine mines in their ports are not 
because of that to be subject to bombardment; it pro¬ 
vided for the restriction of floating mines in war time 
where dangerous to neutral commerce. It composed a 
complete code of rules for the guidance of future inter- 


39 


national procedure—a decided step away from mere 
diplomacy toward an effective international court. The 
nations completely reversed one so-called principle of 
international law, by agreeing never to resort again to 
arms for the collection of contract debts due from one 
nation to the citizens of another without first employing 
every possible means of arbitration. The nations relin¬ 
quished much of their old theories of sovereignty and 
revealed a sympathetic belief in the humanitarian polit¬ 
ical ideal of a free opportunity for each, man or nation, 
to achieve happiness in the service of a free and an ad¬ 
vancing democracy. 

The question of the reduction of armaments was not 
upon the program of the conference and could not, 
therefore, come officially before the convention; but, to 
the terror of the militarists, this whole question became 
the object of careful study. Thirty-five of the nations, 
representing practically nine-tenths of the people of the 
world, voted, strangely enough, for a general treaty of 
obligatory arbitration. 

The recurring Hague conferences may yet be found 
to constitute in themselves the beginning of a legisla¬ 
tive body. As we have seen, the judicial department has 
already begun to emerge, first in the Permanent Court 
of Arbitration, second in the proposed International 
Prize Court, the first to function in time of peace, the 
latter to function in times of war. Besides, there is the 
International Court of Arbitral Justice all but estab¬ 
lished. 

In the light of what is taking place now at The Hague,* 
we may well pause upon this International Court of 
Arbitral Justice. The Second Hague Conference rec¬ 
ognized with Mr. Root that the great need of our age 
is the substitution of a judicial action between the na- 


July, 1920. 



40 


tions for our present diplomatic procedure. Our Amer¬ 
ican delegates at the Second Hague Conference stood, 
therefore, for this High Court of International Justice, 
this International Supreme Court, with the thought 
that it should meet periodically as does our Supreme 
Court. This matter was so left that any two nations 
could meet at any time, organize the Court, open its 
doors, and begin the business of an International Su¬ 
preme Court. It became the policy, however, of the 
nations to wait until a sufficient number of leading 
Powers could agree upon the method of selecting the 
judges. Secretary Knox conceived that the proposed 
International Court of Prize might be expanded into 
such an International Court. But now, upon the initia¬ 
tive of the Counsel at the League of Nations, there has 
been appointed, under Section 14 of the Covenant, a 
commission, now in session at The Hague; and, as a 
result of its work, there is every reason for believing 
that such a Court will soon be successfully launched. 
The establishment of this Court is the most important 
political problem before the world, because in the name 
of that justice which only can beget peace it is the most 
important single feature of an effective will to end war. 

The adoption of an international executive branch of 
government need not now be taken; indeed, it cannot 
now be taken. The power of international public opin¬ 
ion, as an executive force to be applied against States, 
is the only force so far acceptable to the powers. 

The Second Hague Conference was important. The 
measures mentioned are sufficient to make it of interest 
to thoughtful men. It ranks as the first congress of prac¬ 
tically all of the nations of the world. During its ses¬ 
sions the most delicate subjects were discussed by the 
various representatives of the nations, often with spirit 
and feeling, but always with order and good will. The 


41 


record of it stands there on the pages of history, an 
attestation of the victory of the thoroughly open discus¬ 
sion. It reveals the possibilities in a juridical union, 
self-perpetuating, and gives to the world its reasonable 
hope in the ultimate government of nations under law. 
It is a witness to no quackery, but rather it is an illus¬ 
tration of the true grandeur of sincerity at its best. It 
reveals man seeing with a clearer and clearer vision that 
under every normal condition loyalty to truth and jus¬ 
tice is a more excellent patriotism than a blind obeisance 
to tribe, or place, or party. It encourages us to believe 
that the relations existing between nations are destined 
to become as the relations existing between men every¬ 
where under law. It strengthens us in the faith that 
true patriotism calls for deeds of daily service in an 
honorable, sympathetic, and sacrificial citizenship, more 
than it -calls for seeking the bubble reputation at the 
cannon’s mouth; that man will yet cease to bound his 
morals by the limits of man-created political entities, 
and achieve the goal of his will to end war. 

The League of Nations 

The Covenant of the League of Nations, forming 
part 1 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, “Done at 
Versailles, the twenty-eighth day of June, one thousand 
nine hundred and nineteen,” is an expression of the will 
to end war. For the purposes of this paper it is not 
necessary to discuss the question whether or not this 
covenant be sane in principle, consonant with the teach¬ 
ings of history, or even a step toward peace. The fact 
is that it is an expression of the will among men that 
the methods of war shall give way to the modes of peace. 
This will appear from the wording of the first paragraph 
of the covenant, which reads: 


42 


“The High Contracting Parties, 

“In order to promote international co-operation and to 
achieve international peace and security 

“by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, 

“by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations 
between nations, 

“by the firm establishment of the understandings of inter¬ 
national law as the actual rule of conduct among Gov¬ 
ernments, and 

“by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect 
for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized 
peoples with one another, 

“agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations.” 

There it is, the will to end war. 

THE ASSURANCES OF OUR VICTORY 

The Society of Nations will live; if not this League 
of Nations, surely the “solidarity uniting the members 
of the society of civilized nations.” If from time to 
time we be most ignorant of what we are most assured, 
this is not true of ns as we look now upon the Society 
of Nations surely struggling once more into being. We 
know now that a governed world is about to supplant the 
anarchy of international hate with its unbridled destruc¬ 
tions. We now know that the trained intelligence of the 
world has found its chart and compass again, and that 
by their aid the ship of Justice is headed on its proper 
and inevitable course. 

The ultimate victory of justice as between nations is 
assured. Men everywhere, particularly, we may be par¬ 
doned for saying, every friend of the American Peace 
Society, may well rejoice. Facts, not hopes only, come 
to make our assurance doubly sure. An Advisory Com¬ 
mittee, made up of ten of the world’s leading jurists, 
assembled at The Hague, has unanimously agreed upon 
four things. These four things are: 


43 


A. 

A draft scheme for the establishment, in addition 
to the Court of Arbitration organized at The Hague 
Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and in addition to the 
special tribunals of arbitration to which States are al¬ 
ways at liberty to submit their disputes for settlement, 
a Permanent Court of International Justice, to which 
parties shall have direct access. 

B. 

The continuation of The Hague Conferences. The 
exact wording of their recommendation with reference 
to this reads: 

I. That a new conference of the nations, in continua¬ 
tion of the first two conferences at The Hague, be held 
as soon as practicable, for the following purposes: 

1. To restate the established rules of international 
law, especially, and in the first instance in the fields 
affected by the events of the recent war. 

2. To formulate and agree upon the amendments and 
additions, if any, to the rules of international law shown 
to be necessary or useful by the events of the war and 
the changes in the conditions of international life and 
intercourse which have followed the war. 

3. To endeavor to reconcile divergent views and secure 
general agreement upon the rules which have been in 
dispute heretofore. 

4. To consider the subjects not now adequately regu¬ 
lated by international law, but as to which the interests 
of international justice require that rules of law shall 
be declared and accepted. 

II. That the Institute of International Law, the 
American Institute of International Law, the Union 
Juridique Internationale, the International Law Asso¬ 
ciation, and the Iberian Institute of Comparative Law 
be invited to prepare, with such conference or collabora¬ 
tion inter sese as they may deem useful, projects for the 
work of the conference, to be submitted beforehand to 
the several governments and laid before the conference 


44 


for its consideration and snch action as it may find 
suitable. 

III. That the conference be named Conference for 
the Promotion and Extension of International Law. 

IV. That this conference be followed by further suc¬ 
cessive conferences at stated intervals, to continue the 
work left unfinished. 

C. 

A recommendation that the Council and the As¬ 
sembly of the League of Nations examine the advisa¬ 
bility of establishing in the future also another kind of 
a High Court of International Justice, conceived in 
these terms: 

1. A High Court of International Justice is hereby 
established. 

2. This court shall be composed of one member for 
each State, to be chosen by the group of delegates of 
each State represented in the court of arbitration. 

3. The High Court of Justice shall be competent to 
try crimes against international public order and the 
universal law of nations, which shall be referred to it 
by the Assembly or by the Council of the League of 
Nations. 

4. The court shall have power to define the nature of 
the crime, to fix the penalty, and to prescribe the appro¬ 
priate means of carrying out the judgment. It shall 
formulate its own rules of procedure. 

D. 

That the Academy of International Law founded 
at The Hague in 1913, whose operation has, owing to 
circumstances, been interrupted, shall as soon as possi¬ 
ble resume its activity alongside of the Permanent Court 
of Arbitration and the Permanent Court of Interna¬ 
tional Justice, in the Peace Palace at The Hague. 

These are assurances of victory indeed, victory for the 
constructive peace workers of a century. 


45 


THE WORLD’S MOST SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENT 

The most notable and significant document before the 
world today is the recommendation, submitted by the 
Advisory Committee of Jurists meeting at The Hague 
from June 16 to July 24, of the proposed Permanent 
Court of International Justice. The complete Draft of 
this plan is in the Appendix of this pamphlet. A Lon¬ 
don correspondent has cabled that able critics in London 
“regard it as competent in all its details and as repre¬ 
senting the most perfect flower from such worth-while 
seed as the Treaty of Versailles contained.” We are of 
the opinion that this is not an overstatement of the fact. 

Acceptable to All 

It will be noted that the project contemplates a real 
international .court of justice to which no informed per¬ 
son can object. If the recommendations of the com¬ 
mission be adopted by the League or otherwise, the 
members of the court will act as judges in the full sense 
of the word, administering rules of law accepted by the 
nations. The court will be always ready and open for 
cases. Passionless decisions will thus be made possible, 
in accordance with the known facts and the acknowl¬ 
edged principles of international law, and that irre¬ 
spective of political policy. The sanction of the court, 
like the sanction of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in issues between States, is to be, not shrapnel 
and poison gas, but rather that sanction of sanctions; 
namely, the courPs own moral worth. Nations submit¬ 
ting their cases to such a court can neither lose vestige 
of their national sovereignty nor run the risks peculiar 
to mere diplomatic settlements. The project represents 
a careful, balanced adjustment of the interests peculiar 
to the big Powers on the one hand and the little States 
on the other. It contemplates the creation of nothing 


46 


out of mere air; it represents the natural evolution of 
judicial processes from out a known and creditable past. 
It makes possible for the States of the world what his¬ 
tory has demonstrated to be indispensable; namely, a 
government of laws and not of men. None versed in 
the course of justice between States can object to such 
a tried and established method. 

League Must Be Changed 

Yet the plan will embarrass the present League of 
Nations. While the project is the immediate result of 
the action of the Council of the League of Nations, act¬ 
ing under Article XIY of the Covenant, it is quite in¬ 
consonant with that political organ contemplating as it 
does a superstate backed by an impossible scheme for the 
physical enforcement of the weak by the strong. We 
are told that diplomats abroad consider the proposed 
court as differing essentially from the basic idea under¬ 
lying the Council of the League of Nations. This it 
happily does. Undoubtedly the Covenant of the League 
of Nations will have to be modified to meet the spirit 
of this proposal. It will be changed. Readers of these 
columns will discover that it is being changed. Its 
.modification will be acceptable in Downing Street, at 
the Quai d’Orsay, and at the other capitals. We believe 
it to be generally recognized among the friends of the 
Covenant in this country and abroad that Article X of 
the Covenant, for example, must be expunged, if the 
League is to survive. Not only Article X, but Articles 
XI and XVI of the Covenant have been found to be 
specially impossible of application in concrete cases. 
They will be changed. It appears that the European 
friends of the original Covenant are for the most part 
aware at last that these articles are not only impossible, 
but that they are in every way needless in any effective 
international organization—antagonistic, indeed, to the 


47 


basic principles of peaceable settlement. This has all 
been inevitable since Mr. Wilson returned from Paris. 
But the whole situation has been immeasurably relieved 
by this unanimous agreement of this committee of 
jurists—triumph that it is in the accommodation of the 
various schools of international law and practice, and 
free, as it is, of the complications thrust before us by 
various articles of the Covenant, ambiguous if not dan¬ 
gerous. 

Court Not Dependent on League 

It ought not to be necessary utterly to “scrap the 
League of Nations.” But be that as it may, the encour¬ 
aging fact is that the proposed court is not dependent 
upon that organization. It is true that the court may 
come into being upon the action of the Council and the 
approval of the Assembly of the League of Nations. 
Its development may follow upon the continuance of 
those bodies. But these things are not necessarily so; 
for should the League cease to exist the court may be 
both organized and perpetuated. This will be clear 
when we consider certain facts. Thus, we have every 
assurance that there are to be conferences of all the 
nations, as recommended by the Advisory Council of 
Jurists, a continuation of The Hague conferences. It 
would be easily possible for the first of such conferences 
to invest the body of diplomatic representatives accred¬ 
ited by the nations to The Hague—a group referred to, 
both in 1899 and 1907, in the Convention for the Pa¬ 
cific Settlement of International Disputes, as the “Ad¬ 
ministration Council,” with all the essential functions 
of the Assembly of the League of Nations, so far as the 
establishment of the court is concerned. An Executive 
Committee of that Administrative Council, to be chosen 
for the purpose, might easily function as the present 
Council of the League of Nations, with all the powers 


48 


of that Council in the establishment of a court. Thus 
the court might be established, the judges selected, and 
the project put into effect, whether the League of Na¬ 
tions survive or perish. In other words, the Interna¬ 
tional Court of Justice, with headquarters at The 
Hague, can now come into being and thrive unto the 
healing of the nations, irrespective of the conflict of 
ideas over the creation of the Treaty of Versailles. 

Based Upon Wisdom 

It is important that every intelligent person should 
study with care the sixty-two articles of this project, the 
first thirty dealing with the organization, the next six 
with the competence, and the final twenty-six with the 
methods of the Permanent Court of International Jus¬ 
tice. Prom the very first article it is apparent that the 
field of peaceful settlement of international disputes is 
to be materially enlarged. Under the plan, we are to 
have a new agency for the protection of the nations, but 
an agency based on principles ancient and tried. It is 
not to be a substitute for other and well-known methods 
of settlement; but, under it, States are to be able at last 
to adjust their differences, not by threats and force and 
bloodshed, but in accord with the principles of justice 
commonly called rules of law. Parties in dispute are 
to have direct access to this permanent organization. 
Adequately qualified judges are provided for in Article 
II. In Article XVI their independence from govern¬ 
mental influences is assured. In addition to being in¬ 
dependent persons of high moral character, their com¬ 
petence is assured by the stipulation that they shall be 
eligible for appointment to the highest judicial offices, 
jurisconsults of known ability in international law. 

Thus it will appear that the framers of this project 
have based their recommendations upon wisdom. They 
clearly realized that the success of the court must de- 


49 


pend almost entirely upon the character of the judges; 
hence the provisions that such judges shall be profes¬ 
sionally qualified. No.league to enforce peace here; no 
threat of economic blockade and national extinction; no 
blanket authority to a small group of men to “take any 
action that may be deemed wise and effective”; no con¬ 
templation of “an act of war against the other members 
of the League.” Because it is based upon wisdom the 
project constitutes the most encouraging single hope 
since the Armistice of 1918. 

Locating the court at The Hague is another evidence 
of wisdom. The articles of the project, read and ap¬ 
proved one by one, were unanimously adopted as a whole 
July 22, in that fair capital of Holland. Since the 
Court of Arbitration set up in 1899 is already located 
at The Hague; since the Academy of International Law 
and Political 'Science was organized in 1913 at The 
Hague and is to be continued there; since the Hague 
Conferences are to be reconvened unto the advancement 
of international law, meeting regularly and at stated 
periods in the same city, it appears peculiarly appro¬ 
priate that this Permanent Court of International Jus¬ 
tice should take its place at the head of the judicial 
table of the Society of Nations in that sturdy land, 
sacred to the memory of Hugo Grotius. 

Its American Origin 

The project is an American project. Hence it will 
be an inspiration to every American versed in the history 
of his own country. We may well recall that the United 
States of America represents the first union of free, 
independent, sovereign States—a union which survives 
and remains adequate to its purpose. Our fruitful ex¬ 
perience has taught us that this is true primarily be¬ 
cause the judicial power of the United States is “based 
in one Supreme Court,” extending “to controversies he- 


50 


tween two or more States.” We have already said that 
this project is but the natural evolution in the realm of 
world justice. This fact is here quite apparent. Fol¬ 
lowing the example of our Supreme Court, the project 
for the Permanent Court of International Justice— 
adopted at The Hague in 1907 in Article XVII of its 
Convention—provided that “the judicial court of arbi¬ 
tration is competent to deal with all cases submitted to 
it.” The first article under the chapter dealing with the 
competency of this proposed court, Article XXXI, pro¬ 
vides that “the court is competent to deal with cases 
between States.” Thus the evolution is natural and 
real, especially acceptable to every American. 

The court is to have a wide jurisdiction. It can deal 
with issues relative to the interpretation of treaties, to 
any points of international law, to matters of fact con¬ 
stituting the violation of an international engagement, 
to questions of reparation arising from the breach of 
international obligations, and to the interpretations of 
all sentences passed by the court. Indeed, by the pro¬ 
visions of Article XXXIV the court is competent to 
take cognizance of disputes of any kind whatsoever 
which are submitted to it by a general or special agree¬ 
ment of the parties. 

Furthermore, in case of dispute as to whether the 
differences come within the category defined, “the court 
shall decide.” The court, therefore, is to be a court, not 
of arbitration, but of justice, the parties being bound to 
submit to the court within the limits of its jurisdiction. 
Little by little, as law is provided, the jurisdiction of 
the court can be enlarged. Thus, at last the way seems 
about to open before the nations for the realization of 
that truth phrased by one of the greatest of Americans, 
“Ho question is ever settled until it is settled right.” 

It may be repeated that this is the most significant 


51 


thing now before the world. We may well believe that 
there is to be an endless series of periodic conferences 
to carry on the work begun at The Hague in 1899, con¬ 
ferences for the promotion and extension of interna¬ 
tional law. As with our United States, so with the 
nations, a competent judicial body is essential for the 
interpretation of that law. The nations, the United 
States included, will, therefore, welcome this project for 
a Permanent Court of International Justice. The na¬ 
tions are in the way at last to apply the principles of 
self-imposed law, whether the methods of settlement be 
by arbitrators or by magistrates. Mirabeau’s day, "when 
right shall be the sovereign of the world,” is nearer at 
hand. It is, we are firmly convinced, about to break. 

CONCLUSION 

The nations * may safely pin -their faith to some form 
of an international legislature and of an international 
judiciary. They may not expect a universal empire, but 
they may strive for at least this much of an international 
organization, destined yet, as regards international dis¬ 
putes incapable of adjustment by diplomacy or arbitra¬ 
tion, to perfect a juridical union of the civilized nations. 
It is for such that men are giving their lives to the peace 
movement. It is for such that the believers in liberal¬ 
ism and democracy, with their principles of .life, liberty, 
equality, fraternity, and happiness, struggle and wait. 
It is for such that we have peace societies, Hague con¬ 
ferences, institutes of international law, an interparlia¬ 
mentary union, and the longing for some kind of a 
society of nations. It is by such means, we think, that 
wars will be made less probable. 

The burdens and miseries of the world’s military in¬ 
heritance will be lifted as the collective judgments of 
human groups become increasingly clear. The perme- 


52 


ating principle of life pursues its constructive upward 
course, and an advancing age must welcome each con¬ 
structive attempt to supplant with the machinery of law 
and justice the unnatural and hideous devastations of 
war. 


( 


APPENDIX 


THE PROPOSED PERMANENT COURT OF 
INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE 

PROJECT ADOPTED BY JURISTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
AT THE HAGUE; ALSO COVERING LETTER SENT 
BY THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE TO 
ALL GOVERN MENTSMEMBERS 
OF THE LEAGUE 

The following project was registered for publication Sep¬ 
tember 15. The next day the Council of the League of 
Nations gave consideration to the project, and at its meeting 
at Brussels, in October, it will undoubtedly draft definite 
and favorable recommendations to the Assembly of the 
League at its meeting in Geneva, November 15. The im¬ 
portant documents which follow will be of special interest to 
every friend of the American Peace Society.— The Editor. 

(The Covering Letter) 

LEAGUE OF NATIONS 
Permanent Court of International Justice 

(21/5970/895.) (20/31/60. 

Sunderland House, Curzon Street, 

London, W. I., 27 tin August , 1920. 

The Council of the League of Nations has the honor 

to communicate to the - Government the scheme 

presented by the International Committee of eminent 
jurists who were invited to submit plans for the estab¬ 
lishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice, 
and who have recently concluded their deliberations at 
The Hague. 

The Council do not propose to express any opinion on 
the merits of the scheme until they have had a full 
opportunity of considering it, but they permit themselves 
to accompany the documents with the following obser¬ 
vations ; 


53 




54 


The scheme has been arrived at after prolonged dis¬ 
cussion by a most competent tribunal. Its members 
represented widely different national points of view; they 
all signed the report. Its fate has therefore been very 
different from that of the plans for a Court of Arbitral 
Justice, which were discussed without result in 1907. 
Doubtless the agreement was not arrived at without 
difficulty. Variety of opinions, even among the most 
competent experts, is inevitable on a subject so perplex¬ 
ing and complicated. Some mutual concessions are 
therefore necessary if the failure of thirteen years ago 
is not to be repeated. The Council would regard an 
irreconcilable difference of opinion on the merits of the 
scheme as an international misfortune of the greatest 
kind. It would mean that the League was publicly 
compelled to admit its incapacity to carry out one of the 
most important of the tasks which it was invited to per¬ 
form. The failure would be great and probably irrepa¬ 
rable ; for, if agreement proves impossible under circum¬ 
stances apparently so favorable, it is hard to see how 
and when the task of securing it will be successfully 
resumed. 

It is in the spirit indicated by these observations that 
the Council on their part propose to examine the project 
submitted to them by the Committee of Jurists, and they 
trust that in the same spirit the members of the League 
will deal with this all-important subject when the Coun¬ 
cil brings the recommendations before the Assembly. 

Signed on behalf of the Council of the League of 
Nations. 


Secretary-General. 



DRAFT-SCHEME 

For the Institution of the Permanent Court 
of International Justice 

MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 14 OF THE COVENANT OF THE 
LEAGUE OF NATIONS 

Presented to the Council of the League by the Advisory 
Committee of Jurists 

(Transiation) 

Article 1 

A Permanent Court of International Justice, to which 
Parties shall have direct access, is hereby established, 
in accordance with Article 14 of the Covenant of the 
League of Nations. This Court shall be in addition to 
the Court of Arbitration organized by The Hague Con¬ 
vention of 1899 and 1907, and to the special Tribunals 
of Arbitration to which States are always at liberty to 
submit their disputes for settlement. 

Chapter I 

Organization of the Court 
Article 2 

The Permanent Court of International Justice shall 
be composed of a body of independent judges, elected 
regardless of their nationality, from amongst persons 
of high moral character, who possess the qualifications 
required, in their respective countries, for appointment 
to the highest judicial offices, or are jurisconsults of 
recognised competence in international law. 

Article 3 

The Court shall consist of 15 members: 11 judges and 
4 deputy-judges. The number of judges and deputy- 
judges may be hereafter increased by the Assembly, 
upon the proposal of the Council of the League of 
Nations,, to a total of 15 judges and 6 deputy-judges. 

55 


50 


Article 4 

The members of the Court shall be elected by the 
Assembly and the Council from a list of persons nomi¬ 
nated by the national groups in the Court of Arbitration, 
in accordance with the following provisions. 

Article 5 

At least three months before the date of the election, 
the Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall 
address a written request to the members of the Court of 
Arbitration, belonging to the States mentioned in the 
Annex to the Covenant or to the States which shall have 
joined the League subsequently, inviting them to under¬ 
take, by national groups, the nomination of persons in a 
position to accept the duties of a member of the Court. 

No group may nominate more than two persons; the 
nominees may be of any nationality. 

Article 6 

Before making these nominations, each national group 
is hereby recommended to consult its Highest Court of 
Justice, its Legal Faculties and Schools of Law, and its 
National Academies and national sections of Inter¬ 
national Academies devoted to the study of Law. 

Article 7 

The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall 
prepare a list, in alphabetical order, of all the persons 
thus nominated. These persons only shall be eligible 
for appointment, except as provided in Article 12, para¬ 
graph 2. 

The Secretary-General shall submit this list to the 
Assembly and to the Council. 

Article 8 

The Assembly and the Council shall proceed to elect 
by independent voting first the judges and then the 
deputy-judges. 

Article 9 

At every election the electors shall bear in mind that 
not only should all the persons appointed as members 


57 


of the Court possess the qualifications required, but the 
whole body also should represent the main forms of 
civilization and the principal legal systems of the world. 

Article 10 

Those candidates who obtain an absolute majority of 
votes in the Assembly and the Council shall be consid¬ 
ered as elected. 

In the event of more than one candidate of the same 
nationality being elected by the votes of both the 
Assembly and the Council, the eldest of these only shall 
be considered as elected. 

Article 11 

If, after the first sitting held for the purpose of the 
election, one or more seats remain to be filled, a second 
and if necessary, a third sitting shall take place. 

Article 12 

If after the third sitting one or more seats still remain 
unfilled, a joint Conference consisting of six members, 
three appointed by the Assembly and three by the Coun¬ 
cil, may be formed, at any time, at the request of either 
the Assembly or the Council, for the purpose of choosing 
one name for each seat still vacant, to submit to the 
Assembly and the Council for their respective acceptance. 

If the Committee is unanimously agreed upon any 
person who fulfills the required conditions he may be 
included in its list, even though he was not included 
in the list of nominations made by the Court of Arbitra¬ 
tion. 

If the Joint Conference is not successful in procuring 
an election those members of the Court who have already 
been appointed, shall, within a time limit to be arranged 
by the Council, proceed to fill the vacant seats by selec¬ 
tion from amongst those candidates who have obtained 
votes either in the Assembly or in the Council. 

In the event of an equality of votes amongst the 
judges, the eldest judge shall have a casting vote. 

Article 13 

The members of the Court shall be elected for nine 
years. 


58 


They may be re-elected. 

They shall continue to discharge their duties until 
their places have been filled. 

Though replaced, they shall complete any cases which 
they may have begun. 

Article 14 

Vacancies which may occur shall be filled by the same 
method as that laid down for the first election. 

A member of the Court elected to replace a member 
the period of whose appointment has not expired will 
hold the appointment for the remainder of his prede¬ 
cessors term. 

Article 15 

Deputy-judges shall be called upon to sit in the order 
laid down in a list. 

This list shall be prepared by the Court, having re¬ 
gard first to the order in time of each election and sec¬ 
ondly to age. 

Article 16 

The exercise of any function which belongs to the 
political direction, national or international, of States, 
by the Members of the Court, during their terms of 
office is declared incompatible with their judicial duties. 

Any doubt upon this point is settled by the decision of 
the Court. 

Article 17 

No member of the Court can act as agent, counsel or 
advocate in any case of an international nature. 

No member may participate in the decision of any 
case in which he has previously taken an active part, as 
agent, counsel or advocate for one of the contesting 
parties, or as a member of a national or international 
Court, or of a Commission of Inquiry, or in any other 
capacity. 

Any doubt upon this point is settled by the decision 
of the Court. 

Article 18 

A member of the Court cannot be dismissed unless, in 
the unanimous opinion of the other Members, he has 
ceased to fulfill the required conditions. 


59 


When this happens a formal notification shall be given 
to the Secretary-General. 

This notification makes the place vacant. 

Article 19 

The members of the Court when outside their own 
country, shall enjoy the privileges and immunities of 
diplomatic representatives. 

Article 20 

Every member of the Court shall, before taking up 
his duties, make a solemn declaration in open Court that 
he will exercise his powers impartially and conscien¬ 
tiously. 

Article 21 

The Court shall elect its President and Vice-President 
for three years; they may be re-elected. 

It shall appoint its Registrar. 

The duties of Registrar of the Court shall not be con¬ 
sidered incompatible with those of Secretary-General of 
the Permanent Court of Arbitration. 

Article 22 

The seat of the Court shaJl bo established at The 
Hague. 

The President and Registrar shall reside at the seat 
of the Court. 

Article 23 

A session shall be held every year. 

Unless otherwise provided by rules of Court this ses¬ 
sion shall begin on the 15th June, and shall continue 
for so long as may be necessary to complete the cases on 
the list. 

The President may summon an extraordinary meeting 
of the Court whenever necessary. 

Article 24 

If, for some special reason, a member of the Court 
considers that he cannot take part in the decision of a 
particular case, he shall so inform the President. 

If, for some special reason, the President considers 


60 


that one of the members of the Court should not sit on 
a particular case, he shall give notice to the member 
concerned. 

In the event of the President and the member not 
agreeing as to the course to be adopted in any such case, 
the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court. 

Article 25 

The full Court shall sit except when it is expressly 
provided otherwise. 

If 11 judges cannot be present, deputy-judges shall be 
called upon to sit, in order to make up this number. 

If, however, 11 judges are not available, a quorum of 
9 judges shall suffice to constitute the Court. 

Article 26 

With a view to the speedy despatch of business the 
Court shall form, annually, a chamber composed of three 
judges who, at the request of the contesting parties may 
hear and determine cases by summary procedure. 

Article 27 

The Court shall frame rules for regulating its pro¬ 
cedure. In particular, it shall lay down rules for sum¬ 
mary procedure. 

Article 28 

Judges of the nationality of each contesting party 
shall retain their right to sit in the case before the Court. 

If the Court includes upon the Bench a judge of the 
nationality of one of the parties only, the other party 
may select from among the deputy-judges, a judge of its 
nationality, if there be one. If there should not be one, 
the party may choose a judge, preferably from among 
those persons who have been nominated as candidates by 
some national group in the Court of Arbitration. 

If the Court includes upon the Bench no judges of the 
nationality of the contesting parties, each of these may 
proceed to select or choose a judge as provided in the 
preceding paragraph. 

Should there be several parties in the same interest, 
they shall, for the purpose of the preceding provisions, 
be reckoned as one party only. 


61 


Judges selected or chosen as laid down in paragraphs 
2 and 3 of this article shall fulfil the conditions required 
by Articles 2, 16, 17, 20, 24 of this Statute. They shall 
take part in the decision on an equal footing with their 
colleagues. 

Article 29 

The judge shall receive an annual salary to be de¬ 
termined by the Assembly of the League of Nations upon 
the proposal of the Council. This salary must not be 
decreased during the period of a judge’s appointment. 

The President shall receive a special grant for his 
period of office, to be fixed in the same way. 

Deputy-judges shall receive a grant, for the actual 
performance of their duties, to be fixed in the same way. 

Traveling expenses incurred in the performance of 
their duties shall be refunded to judges and deputy- 
judges who do not reside at the seat of the Court. 

Grants due to judges selected or chosen as provided in 
Article 28 shall be determined in the same way. 

The salary of the Registrar shall be decided by the 
Council upon the proposal of the Court. 

A special regulation shall provide for the pensions to 
which the judges and registrar shall be entitled. 

Article 30 

The expenses of the Court shall be borne by the League 
of Nations, in such a manner as shall be decided by the 
Assembly upon the proposal of the Council. 

Chapter II 

Competence of the Court 

Article 31 

The Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and de¬ 
terminate suits between States. 

Article 32 

The Court shall be open of right to the States men¬ 
tioned in the Annex to the Covenant, and to such others 
as shall subsequently enter the League of Nations. 

Other States may have access to it. 


9 


62 


The conditions under which the Court shall be open 
of right or accessible to States which are not Members 
of the League .of Nations shall be determined by the 
Council, in accordance with Article 17 of the Covenant. 

Article 33 

When a dispute has arisen between States and it has 
been found impossible to settle it by diplomatic means, 
and no agreement has been made to choose another 
jurisdiction, the party complaining may bring the case 
before the Court. The Court shall, first of all, decide 
whether the preceding conditions have been complied 
with; if so, it shall hear and determine the dispute ac¬ 
cording to the terms and within the limits of the next 
Article. 

Article 34 

Between States which are Members of the League of 
Nations, the Court shall have jurisdiction (and this 
without any special convention giving it jurisdiction) 
to hear and determine cases of a legal nature, concerning: 

a. The interpretation of a treaty; 

b. Any question of international law; 

c. The existence of any fact which, if established, 
would constitute a breach of an international obligation; 

d. The nature or extent of reparation to be made for 
the breach of an international obligation; 

e. The interpretation of a sentence passed by the 
Court. 

The Court shall also take cognizance of all disputes of 
any kind which may be submitted to it by a general or 
particular convention between the parties. 

In the event of a dispute as to whether a certain case 
comes within any of the categories above mentioned, the 
matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court. 

Article 35 

The Court shall, within the limits of its jurisdiction 
as defined in Article 34, apply in the order following: 

1. International conventions, whether general or par¬ 
ticular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the 
contesting States; 


63 


2. International custom, as evidence of a general prac¬ 
tice, which is accepted as law; 

3. The general principles of law recognized by civi¬ 
lized nations; 

4. Judicial decisions and the teachings of the most 
highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as 
subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. 

Article 36 

The Court shall give an advisory opinion upon, any 
question or dispute of an international nature referred 
to it by the Council or Assembly. 

When the Court shall give an opinion on a question of 
an international nature which does not refer to any 
dispute that may have arisen, it shall appoint a special 
Commission of from three to five members. 

When it shall give an opinion upon a question which 
forms the subject of an existing dispute, it shall do so 
under the same conditions as if the case had been 
actually submitted to it for decision. 

Chapter III 

Procedure 

Article 37 

The official language of the Court shall be French. 

The Court may, at the request of the contesting 
parties, authorize another language to be used before it. 

Article 38 

A State desiring to have recourse to the Court shall 
lodge a written application addressed to the Registrar. 

The application shall indicate the subject of the dis¬ 
pute and name the contesting parties. 

The Registrar shall forthwith communicate the ap¬ 
plication to all concerned. 

He shall also notify the Members of the League of 
Nations through the Secretary-General. 

Article 39 

If the dispute arises out of an act which has already 
taken place or which is imminent, the Court shall have 


64 


the power to suggest, if it considers that circumstances 
so require, the provisional measures that should be taken 
to preserve the respective rights of either party. 

Pending the final decision, notice of the measures sug¬ 
gested shall forthwith be given to the parties and the 
Council. 

Article 40 

The parties shall be represented by agents. 

They may have counsel or advocates to plead before 
the Court. 

Article 41 

The procedure shall consist of two parts: written 
and oral. 

Article 42 

The written proceedings shall consist of the com¬ 
munication to the judges and to the parties of state¬ 
ments of cases, counter-cases and, if necessary, replies; 
also all papers and documents in support. 

These communications shall be made through the 
Registrar, in the order and within the time fixed by 
the Court. 

A certified copy of every document produced by one 
party shall be communicated to the other party. 

Article 43 

The oral proceedings shall consist of the hearing by 
the Court of witnesses, experts, agents, counsel and 
advocates. 

For the service of all notices upon persons other than 
the agents, counsel and advocates, the Court shall apply 
direct to the Government of the State upon whose terri¬ 
tory the notice has to be served. 

The same provision shall apply whenever steps are to 
be taken to procure evidence on the spot. 

Article 44 

The proceedings shall be under the direction of the 
President, or in his absence, of the Vice-President; if 
both are absent, the senior judge shall preside. 

Article 45 

The hearing in Court shall be public, unless the Court, 


65 


at the written request of one of the parties, accompanied 
by a statement of his reasons, shall otherwise decide. 

Article 46 

Minutes shall be made at each hearing, and signed by 
•the Registrar and the President. 

These minutes shall be the only authentic record. 

Article 47 

The Court shall make orders for the conduct of the 
case, shall decide the form and time in which each party 
must conclude its arguments, and make all arrangements 
connected with the taking of evidence. 

Article 48 

The Court may, even before the hearing begins, call 
upon the agents to produce any document, or to supply 
to the Court any explanations. Any refusal shall be 
recorded. 

Article 49 

The Court may, at any time, entrust any individual, 
bureau, commission or other body that it may select, 
with the task of carrying out an inquiry or giving an 
expert opinion. 

Article 50 

During the hearing in Court, the judges may put any 
questions considered by them to be necessary, to the 
witnesses, agents, experts, advocates or counsel. The 
agents, advocates and counsel shall have the right to ask, 
through the President, any questions that the Court 
considers useful. 

Article 51 

After the Court has received the proofs and evidence 
within the time specified for the purpose, it may refuse 
to accept any further oral or written evidence that one 
party may desire to present unless the other side con¬ 
sents. 

Article 52 

Whenever one of the parties shall not appear before 
the Court, or shall fail to defend his case, the other party 
may call upon the Court to decide in favor of his claim. 


The Court must, before doing so, satisfy itself, not 
only that it has jurisdiction in accordance with Articles 
33 and 34, but also that the claim is supported by sub¬ 
stantial evidence and well founded in fact and law. 

Article 53 

When the agents, advocates and counsel subject to the 
control of the Court, have presented all the evidence, 
and taken all other steps that they consider advisable, 
the President shall declare the case closed. 

The Court shall withdraw to consider the judgment. 

The deliberations of the Court shall take place in 
private and remain secret. 

Article 54 

All questions shall be decided by a majority of the 
judges present at the hearing. 

In the event of an equality of votes, the President or 
his deputy shall have a casting vote. 

Article 55 

The judgment shall state the reasons on which it is 
based. 

It shall contain the names of the judges who have 
taken part in the decision. 

Article 56 

If the judgment given does not represent, wholly or in 
part, the unanimous opinion of the judges, the dissent¬ 
ing judges shall be entitled to have the fact of their 
dissent or reservations mentioned in it. But the reasons 
for their dissent or reservations shall not be expressed 
in the judgment. 

Article 57 

The judgment shall be signed by the President and 
by the Registrar. It shall be read in open Court, due 
notice having been given to the agents. 

Article 58 

The judgment is final and without appeal. In the 
event of uncertainty as to the meaning or scope of the 


67 


judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request 
of any party. 

Article 59 

An application for revision of a judgment can be 
made only when it is based upon the discovery of some 
new fact, of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, 
which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown 
to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, 
always provided that such ignorance was not due to 
negligence. 

The proceedings for revision will be opened by a judg¬ 
ment of the Court expressly recording the existence of 
the new fact, recognizing that it has such a character as 
to lay the case open to revision, and declaring the ap¬ 
plication admissible on this ground. 

The Court may require previous compliance with the 
terms of the judgment before it admits proceedings in 
revision. 

Uo application for revision may be made after the 
lapse of five years from the date of the sentence. 

Article 60 

Should a State consider that it has an interest of a 
legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the 
case, it may submit a request to the Court to be per¬ 
mitted to intervene as a third party. 

It will be for the Court to decide upon this request. 

Article 61 

Whenever the construction of a convention in which 
States, other than those ‘concerned in the case, are 
parties, is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such 
States forthwith. 

Every State so notified has the right to intervene in 
the proceedings; but if it uses this right, the construc¬ 
tion given by the judgment will be as binding upon it 
as upon the original parties to the dispute. 

Article 62 

Unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party 
shall bear its own costs. 


68 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 038 716 37 


2 


“The next step by which the system of peaceable set¬ 
tlement of international disputes can be advanced, the 
pathway along which it can be pressed forward to 
universal acceptance and use, is to substitute for the 
kind of arbitration we have now, in which the arbi¬ 
trators proceed according to their ideas of diplomatic 
obligation, real courts where judges, acting under the 
sanctity of the judicial oath, pass upon the rights of 
countries, as judges pass upon the rights of individ¬ 
uals, in accordance with the facts as found and the 
law as established. With such tribunals, which are 
continuous, and composed of judges who make it their 
life business, you will soon develop a bench composed 
of men who have become familiar with the ways in 
which the people of every country do their business 
and do their thinking, and you will have a gradual 
growth of definite rules, of fixed interpretation, and 
of established precedents, according to which you may 
know your case will be decided,’!— Elihu Root, speak¬ 
ing at the opening meeting of the American Society 
for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes, 1910. 








